IKHLAS SHAFI GANIE MR. WAJID MOHAMMAD HASEEB vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME) — HCP/112/2025
Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Dismised on 05th June 2026.
CNR: JKHC010023552025
Filing Number
HCP/529/2025
Filing Date
19-May-2025
Registration No
HCP/112/2025
Registration Date
19-May-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
Bench Type
SINGLE BENCH
Category
SB HABEAS CORPUS PETITION ( 107 )
Sub-Category
CASES PERTAINING TO PSA ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
HABEUS CORPUS PETITION (HCP)
Decision Date
05-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismised
Last updated 08-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.IKHLAS SHAFI GANIE MR. WAJID MOHAMMAD HASEEB
Respondent(s)
-
1.UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay DharView PDF
Case Summary: HCP/112/2025 The High Court of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed petitioner Ikhlas Shafi Ganie's challenge to his preventive detention order dated 26.04.2025 under the Public Safety Act. The court found that the detaining authority properly furnished specific intelligence reports and detailed grounds citing the petitioner's past criminal history, involvement in FIR No. 77/2018, nexus with anti-national elements, and work as an Over Ground Worker for Lakshar-e-Taiba and The Resistance Front—establishing sufficient specificity for detention. The court rejected all contentions that the grounds were vague, material was withheld, or procedural safeguards violated, noting the petitioner received 20 leaves of documents and his representation was properly considered by the Advisory Board before rejection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay DharView PDF
-
08-May-2026
For Final Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
-
29-Apr-2026
For Final Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
-
16-Apr-2026
For Final Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
-
06-Apr-2026
For Final Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
-
09-Mar-2026
For Final Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
-
24-Feb-2026
For Final Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
-
16-Feb-2026
For Final Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
-
12-Feb-2026
For Final Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
-
29-Jan-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal WaniView PDF
-
29-Jan-2026
For Final Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
-
26-Dec-2025
For Final Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
-
25-Nov-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay DharView PDF
-
25-Nov-2025
For Admission Non Fresh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
-
30-Oct-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay DharView PDF
-
30-Oct-2025
For Admission Non Fresh
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
-
25-Sep-2025
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria KazmiView PDF
-
25-Sep-2025
For Admission Non Fresh
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
-
02-Sep-2025
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria KazmiView PDF
-
02-Sep-2025
For Admission Non Fresh
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
-
04-Aug-2025
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria KazmiView PDF
-
04-Aug-2025
For Admission Non Fresh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
-
09-Jul-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji KoulView PDF
-
09-Jul-2025
For Admission Non Fresh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
-
21-May-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji KoulView PDF
-
21-May-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. HCP/112/2025
Case Summary: HCP/112/2025 The High Court of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed petitioner Ikhlas Shafi Ganie's challenge to his preventive detention order dated 26.04.2025 under the Public Safety Act. The court found that the detaining authority properly furnished specific intelligence reports and detailed grounds citing the petitioner's past criminal history, involvement in FIR No. 77/2018, nexus with anti-national elements, and work as an Over Ground Worker for Lakshar-e-Taiba and The Resistance Front—establishing sufficient specificity for detention. The court rejected all contentions that the grounds were vague, material was withheld, or procedural safeguards violated, noting the petitioner received 20 leaves of documents and his representation was properly considered by the Advisory Board before rejection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts